Hi Brian,
Thank you for your comments.
We will address your comments in v06.
Please see the response below as well.
Happy holidays,Sanjay & Nir
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 14:58 Brian Haberman via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Brian Haberman
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These comments were
written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document
editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat
comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other
Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT
Directorate, see <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.
* Major issues : None
* Minor issues :
- Should these footprints be able to support the identification of
individual hosts (e.g., IPv4address type versus IPv4cidr)?
[S&N] The intention is to support only CIDRs. Even though CIDRs can practically point to a single IP (and therefore to a specific host), with respect to security and privacy this is not encouraged.
* Nits
- If the answer to the minor issue is that endpoints (as defined in RFC
8006) can be identified in a footprint, I was a little confused by Section
2.2 discussing footprints that contain IP literals. It look me a bit to
realize that this formulation does not support scoped IPv6 addresses
(needed to trace back through RFC 8006 to RFC 3986 to find that
information). It may be worthwhile to mention in the section description
that scoped addresses are not supported in these types.
[S&N] Good catch. We would specify that we refer to un-scoped IPs.
- Section 2.2, 2nd paragraph needs a little rewording "listing IP
addresses blocks" should either be "listing IP address blocks" or "listing
IP subnets".
[S&N] Fixed
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
